Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Should this be considered free? I can't see it as free. It's very > clear that recipients are being charged for the ability to modify the > software. They aren't on a plane with the original author. This is a > root problem similar to that of the FSF's shenanigans with GFDL and > GPL'd text, and the reason I object to their use of the GFDL: when > only a copyright holder can do some things, that's non-Free.
How does providing extra freedoms to certain recipients decrease the freeness of a piece of software? Software under the GPL is free. Software under the BSD license is free. Software that is sometimes under one and sometimes under another ought to still be free. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
